I also notice that 2004 was the last year that a team name or city was incorportated in the logo. I guess it says something that you didn't catch the "N.Y.C." at the bottom of the logo. I'm afraid I'm going to have disqualify any opinion on graphic design that appears on a website that looks that crappy. Bunch of design snobs, sitting around bitching ad nauseum about font selection, in Arial. Blah blah blah blah blah. I was really hoping the article would at least be funnier. The logo is fine. Maybe not an award winner, but it could be a lot worse. It's a sight better than that ridiculous Olympic disaster. And it actually looks pretty cool sitting on the actual facade at the Stadium. The only glaring error, in my opinion, is the red font, which is so bad you almost don't even notice it. Ah well. I hope this at least works out as a launching pad for Yankee bashing as well as it did in the comments below the article. Can't wait.

I also notice that 2004 was the last year that a team name or city was incorportated in the logo what shaykeno and crafty said. there's also a version up at the Stadium with the Yankees script logo on it instead of "Major League Baseball" sure, there's a lot you can pick apart about the logo. but i found it to be a nice change of pace from some of the busier ones of recent years (like Pittsburgh in 2006). i'm just curious to see how it's going to translate into a patch. some of the thinner lines may get lost when embroidered.

there's also a version up at the Stadium with the Yankees script logo on it instead of "Major League Baseball" Thank you. I stared at that logo wondering why I couldn't remember the red text. It is so much better with the Yankees script.

I hope this at least works out as a launching pad for Yankee bashing as well as it did in the comments below the article. Oh, please. Oversensitivity just doesn't wear well on Yankee fans. As for the logo, it's about what I would expect from one of MLB's most storied franchises: no gimmicky crap, just simple, straightforward, and clean. I have absolutely no problem with it.

I'd say it's one of the best looking ones they have had. Very classy, unlike the Rollie Fingers moustachioed Reds mascot from '53 or the '59 Los Angeles logo with a sombrero on top of a baseball or the Cleveland Indians logos with caricatured Native Americans. '84 to '90 was definitely a bad period for the logo while '06 has to take the booby prize.